Tuckey v. Tuckey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]lthough the [district] court was not bound to accept the evaluation of the Department of Social Services, the court indicated no reason for totally dismissing the report submitted under court order.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. K.P.S. v. E.J.P. · Woodward v. LaFranca

2. “13_ [Clefs] bonding to [Mr. Duncan] has been hampered because [Mr. Duncan] has not had the opportunity to develop the bonding relationship with [Clel], The review of the file and the transcript of these proceedings evidences the resistance [Mr. Duncan] has met in establishing a close relationship with Clel. The testimony of the custody evaluators in this ease led the Court to believe that with continued therapy sessions, Clel can develop a strong bond with his father. [[Image here]] 16. [Mr. Duncan] has demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice his own interest and welfare for [Clefs]. It is evident that [Mr. Duncan] cared about Clel and is willing to sacrifice his own interests for [Clel’s][;] however, the [Thordersons] were not cooperative and did not further a father/son relationship between Clel and [Mr. Duncan]. 17. There was no significant evidence that [Mr. Duncan] lacked the sympathy for and understanding of the child that is characteristic of parents generally. The Court believes that [Mr. Duncan] understands the problems that have been created by Clel being born out of wedlock, the abandonment of Clel by his mother, and the lack of regular visitation by him with Clel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Duncan v. Howard

3. “[The parental presumption] cannot be rebutted merely by demonstrating that the opposing party possesses superior qualifications, has established a deeper bond with the child, or is able to provide more desirable circumstances. If the presumption could be rebutted merely by evidence that a nonparent would be a superior custodian, the parent’s natural right to custody could be rendered illusory and with it the child’s natural right to be reared, where possible, by his or her natural parent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Duncan v. Howard